PreprintCited by 3,362Generative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningImage and Signal Denoising Methods

Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Synthesis

Open access
Dhariwal, Prafulla, Nichol, Alex·2021·arXiv

Abstract

We show that diffusion models can achieve image sample quality superior to the current state-of-the-art generative models. We achieve this on unconditional image synthesis by finding a better architecture through a series of ablations. For conditional image synthesis, we further improve sample quality with classifier guidance: a simple, compute-efficient method for trading off diversity for fidelity using gradients from a classifier. We achieve an FID of 2.97 on ImageNet 128$\times$128, 4.59 on ImageNet 256$\times$256, and 7.72 on ImageNet 512$\times$512, and we match BigGAN-deep even with as few as 25 forward passes per sample, all while maintaining better coverage of the distribution. Finally, we find that classifier guidance combines well with upsampling diffusion models, further improving FID to 3.94 on ImageNet 256$\times$256 and 3.85 on ImageNet 512$\times$512. We release our code at https://github.com/openai/guided-diffusion

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2105.05233

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Diffusion models can produce more realistic images compared to GANs and VAEs.

    “Diffusion models can produce more realistic images compared to GANs and VAEs (Aghasanli etal. 2023; Dhariwal and Nichol 2021).”

    From Deepfake video detection: challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as Dhariwal and Nichol 2021

    The Conclusion states that the authors’ diffusion models achieve better sample quality than state-of-the-art GANs, supporting the GAN comparison. The Introduction discusses VAEs among likelihood-based models but does not establish a direct diffusion-versus-VAE image-quality comparison, so that part of the claim is not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • PSNR and SSIM can be improved by using a post-hoc guiding mechanism.

    “PSNR and SSIM can be pushed by using a post-hoc guiding mechanism [15] and we implement this image-based guider via a perceptual loss, see Sec. D.6.”

    From High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models (2022) · cites this paper as [15]

    Section 4.3 (p. 8) reports that classifier guidance can improve sample quality, supporting the general point that guidance can help. But Section 2.2 (p. 3) describes evaluation using FID, sFID, Inception Score, precision and recall; the paper does not report improvements in PSNR or SSIM. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Diffusion Probabilistic Models have outperformed GANs in image synthesis, demonstrating superior results in both quality and diversity.

    “Recently, Diffusion Probabilistic Models (DM) have outperformed GANs in image synthesis, demonstrating superior results in terms of both quality and diversity [42,67,85,86,140,164].”
  • The final FID scores for 256×256 image generation are 4.1 for Lion vs. 4.7 for AdamW.

    “The final FID scores are 4.1 (Lion) vs. 4.7 (AdamW), and for reference, the FID of ADM (Dhariwal and Nichol, 2021) is 10.94.”

    From Symbolic Discovery of Optimization Algorithms (2023) · cites this paper as Dhariwal and Nichol, 2021

  • Diffusion models define the state-of-the-art in class-conditional image synthesis and super-resolution.

    “and define the state-of-the-art in class-conditional image synthesis [15,31] and super-resolution [72].”

    From High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models (2022) · cites this paper as [15]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [11][11] Harm de Vries, Florian Strub, Jérémie Mary, Hugo Larochelle, Olivier Pietquin, and Aaron Courville. Modulating early visual processing by language. arXiv:1707.00683, 2017. · arXiv
  2. [12][12] DeepMind. Biggan-deep 128x128 on tensorflow hub. https://tfhub.dev/deepmind/ biggan-deep-128/1, 2018. 13 https://twitter.com/advadnoun/status/1351038053033406468 https://twitter.com/advadnoun/status/1351038053033406468 https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01973 https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07093 https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.11096 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.00713 https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.10650 https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00683 https://tfhub.dev/deepmind/biggan-deep-128/1 https://tfhub.dev/deepmind/biggan-deep-128/1 · arXiv
  3. [18][18] Ruiqi Gao, Yang Song, Ben Poole, Ying Nian Wu, and Diederik P. Kingma. Learning energy- based models by diffusion recovery likelihood. arXiv:2012.08125, 2020. · arXiv
  4. [19][19] Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks. arXiv:1406.2661, 2014. · arXiv
  5. [46][46] Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. arXiv:1912.01703, 2019. · arXiv
  6. [66][66] Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. arXiv:1706.03762, 2017. · arXiv
  7. [69][69] Yuxin Wu and Kaiming He. Group normalization. arXiv:1803.08494, 2018. · arXiv
  8. [71][71] Fisher Yu, Ari Seff, Yinda Zhang, Shuran Song, Thomas Funkhouser, and Jianxiong Xiao. Lsun: Construction of a large-scale image dataset using deep learning with humans in the loop. arXiv:1506.03365, 2015. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dhariwal, P., & Nichol, A.
Affiliations
OpenAI (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3162926177
Cited by
3,362
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 923 · 2024: 1508 · 2023: 770 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 39
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Signal Denoising Methods
Keywords
diffusion models, image generation, unconditional image generation, conditional image generation, classifier guidance, sample quality, ImageNet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review